On 12/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will somehow morph into a truth?
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:57:32 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The opinions of many individuals on this thread are already well known, yet that does not stop them from continually repeating them. Please don't single out Guy just because he disagrees with you.
...and, of course, their continually repeating them don't make them true, no matter how much they might wish it.
Well, it is all a moot point now what we think of the whole matter. It is now described in The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
Enjoy your reading.
Risker
On Dec 3, 2007 9:30 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 12/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will somehow morph into a truth?
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:57:32 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The opinions of many individuals on this thread are already well known, yet that does not stop them from continually repeating them. Please don't single out Guy just because he disagrees with you.
...and, of course, their continually repeating them don't make them true, no matter how much they might wish it.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
If it weren't for the fact that Durova has been put through the wringer quite enough on this matter, I'd suggest that someone she respects ask her if she had been contacted with the opportunity to comment. To be honest though, even if she had been contacted, I wouldn't blame her a bit for saying no.
Risker
On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
To call The Register a newspaper is quite a stretch (even if they are, technically). Their business model is to piss off as many people as possible in order to increase page views and ad revenue. They've found that Wikipedians get pissed off quite frequently, and decided to go with it on a regular basis.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/wikipedia_aphrodites_araldite/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/
On Dec 4, 2007 12:14 AM, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that
couldn't
happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
To call The Register a newspaper is quite a stretch (even if they are, technically). Their business model is to piss off as many people as possible in order to increase page views and ad revenue. They've found that Wikipedians get pissed off quite frequently, and decided to go with it on a regular basis.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/wikipedia_aphrodites_araldite/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/
-- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this evening, we have well over 1000 links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's some major cleaning up to do. I doubt you'll manage to convince all ov the editors on all of the articles where it is used that it is that bad of a source. I'll agree it comes out a bit like a hit piece, but I've seen far worse in "reliable" sources on similar subjects. It would be interesting to know if the Foundation or Jimbo were asked to comment though, which is one thing the article doesn't say.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 4, 2007 12:40 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this evening, we have well over 1000 links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's some major cleaning up to do. I doubt you'll manage to convince all ov the editors on all of the articles where it is used that it is that bad of a source. I'll agree it comes out a bit like a hit piece, but I've seen far worse in "reliable" sources on similar subjects. It would be interesting to know if the Foundation or Jimbo were asked to comment though, which is one thing the article doesn't say.
I wouldn't call it a rag. They're reliable on many subjects. However, on some, particularly Wikipedia, they have a distinct and non-relenting bias. While this article wasn't particularly bad, the fact is that every article they write about Wikipedia includes a dig at our reliability, editors, "cabal", or something else they can complain about. I said I wouldn't call it a "newspaper" because when I think of a newspaper, The Register doesn't come to mind at all.
Like any source, their biases should be seriously considered.
On Dec 3, 2007 10:07 PM, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Like any source, their biases should be seriously considered.
Their biggest bias is that they play to the audience - in that they know being controversial gets them noticed.
-Matt
Their biggest bias is that they play to the audience - in that they know being controversial gets them noticed.
yes, that's what we call a "tabloid" in the obscure lingo of the newspaper business. Generally such rags aren't thought to be reliable news sources, or worthy of attention beyond reading in the line at the grocery store.
On Dec 3, 2007 10:13 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 10:07 PM, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Like any source, their biases should be seriously considered.
Their biggest bias is that they play to the audience - in that they know being controversial gets them noticed.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this evening, we have well over 1000 links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's some major cleaning up to do.
It's fine.
I love the way that people convince themselves because they don't like us we get to (or ought to?) juggle logic in order to declare them unreliable. This is the second time I've seen this approach argued on this particular case!
So, hum. It has a known editorial voice, one it expresses strongly, and the way it reports on topics we know a lot about leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy.
You know what? The latter part's true for pretty much any publication. We pick holes in articles discussing us in the most learned or respected sources; it should be no surprise that the Register is any different.
So we're left with the editorial voice. They don't like us. Boo-hoo. Lots of people don't like us, lots of people think we're fundamentally going about our business in the wrong direction - with varying degrees of sense behind that - and the way to make this better isn't to start randomly getting rid of bits of content because of some kind of presumed subtext.
Andrew Gray wrote:
So we're left with the editorial voice. They don't like us. Boo-hoo. Lots of people don't like us, lots of people think we're fundamentally going about our business in the wrong direction - with varying degrees of sense behind that - and the way to make this better isn't to start randomly getting rid of bits of content because of some kind of presumed subtext.
Yep! Most of us would have been happy to leave Durova's repairable error of judgement behind us. When we are criticized there may be some value to the criticism. A stubborn and persistent pseudo-defence probably draws more negative attention to the incident than it should ever have merited.
Ec
On 12/3/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
That's interesting-- I totally don't see going to the press (in the abstract) as a bad thing, I see it as a valuable RFC from the larger community-- in the case, the community of humans.
But I wonder if I really believe that, or if I just believe that in this case because I tend to agree that the Durova Incident was such a huge deal. When you have a human brain, you can never really be sure-- or at least, I can't. :)
Alec
Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 12/3/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
That's interesting-- I totally don't see going to the press (in the abstract) as a bad thing, I see it as a valuable RFC from the larger community-- in the case, the community of humans.
Yes, but that's an RfC from people with little to no knowledge about how the community actually functions. From past experience such RfCs just increase the heat levels while providing no light and result in all sorts of additional problems for the privacy of involved editors. And while I don't see it going to press as a bad thing in the abstract(it really does show how far Wikipedia has come along that our internal disputes get such press coverage) in general past coverage of disputes has made things worse rather than better.
But I wonder if I really believe that, or if I just believe that in this case because I tend to agree that the Durova Incident was such a huge deal. When you have a human brain, you can never really be sure-- or at least, I can't. :)
Alec
On 12/4/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Yes, but that's an RfC from people with little to no knowledge about how the community actually functions.
True dat. That was the thing that was so frustrating about mainstream media coverage of the Essjay thing. We're a community that doesn't go in for "crediential original research". If you're a 14 years old and you make a better than a 50 year old professor, we go with the 14 year old.
I don't think I ever saw any articles that really "got" that about us. It doesn't really matter if you do fake your resume, because we don't look at your resume, and if by chance we do, we don't we don't believe your claims about your resume.
But anyway, that's a long dead horse.
Alec
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:00:16 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
This was on the Martian Wikipedia, right? It's a bit similar in some respects to what happened here, but only a bit. I think they should have changed the names to avoid giving the impression this was the Durova on enWP.
Guy (JzG)
On 04/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:00:16 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
This was on the Martian Wikipedia, right? It's a bit similar in some respects to what happened here, but only a bit. I think they should have changed the names to avoid giving the impression this was the Durova on enWP.
Cade Metz has been badgering random admins to talk to him for a while, presumably because everyone knows Orlowski's name is a warning.
- d.
On Dec 3, 2007 9:30 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 12/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you think if you repeat this falsehood 100 more times it will somehow morph into a truth?
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:57:32 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The opinions of many individuals on this thread are already well known, yet that does not stop them from continually repeating them. Please don't single out Guy just because he disagrees with you.
...and, of course, their continually repeating them don't make them true, no matter how much they might wish it.
No, Guy's statement was true from the start, so it didn't need to be "made true".